a6 murder

[Limehouse]

Hello there JP56 - and a very warm welcome.

That was a fantastic first post. Some fabulous stuff to reespond to! I'll do the bits that jump out for me first:

1. - I think Valerie did receive a certain amount of coaching by the police - particularly when on ID parades - and the evidence for this was her feeling the need to select 'someone' from thje first parade rather than saying - the man in question has blue eyes and none of thse men is the man.
2. I would say the best opportunity that Valerie had to notice the build and general appearance of the man would have been when they were removing Mike from the car. It was around 3.30am then and would not have been pitch black. I don't think the 'headlights/face lit up scenario is very reliable.
3. Certainly - many criminal types had cockney accents and certainly many of them travelled out of London to perform their criminal acts - including Hanratty - and he could not have been the only one.
4. No forensics in the car - this is especailly strange as VS removed her knickers when she was raped and you would expect semen to have escaped somewhere into the car - especially on the seats.
5. - I have posed the possibility of a completely as-to-now unknown gunman who escaped indentification completely. This is an area that could certainly use some more debate.
13. - totally agree
14. Whio indeed?
15. - had anyone escaped from jail?

As for the five hour ordeal - it does seem a long - long time to be driving around doing nothing much. What was the true motive for the crime? Theft? Unlikely - why pick on a Moggie in a cornfield? Hanratty was the type of thief who entered people's houses when they were not at home and took as much as he thought was worth taking and he could carry in as fast a time as he could manage. If he was going to change his MO to armed robbery - he would have gone for a fast job with low risk and high returns.

Once again - welcome. Stick around!

[JP56]

So many questions from a forum noobie...

I have steadily worked thru 75% of the postings on the A6 murder. Not sure what triggered my interest but the quality of debate is high (some outright name-calling excepted!!!) and I have found it stimulating.

I guess I had a vague sense that there were questions over JH’s conviction & hanging (even though the DNA results passed me by at the time) and my reading into the topic has given me fresh insight.

I have toggled between ‘JH is innocent’ and ‘mmm, likely he did it…’ so on the fence, as they say. I wanted to contribute some thoughts, questions and puzzles as I see them. Apologies if they have been comprehensively covered on this forum already, but, as I see it, there’s still scope for debate about a lot of the facets of the A6 murder.

So… issues / questions in my mind.

1. VS’ version of events, accuracy of reporting of events during the night of 22/23 Aug 1961. Now, don’t get me wrong… I believe VS is an honourable, brave and honest person. What I am raising is, under such extreme circumstances, ANYONE could be forgiven for getting things wrong when recalling them afterwards. The sheer terror she must have experienced for so many hours would have meant that she would have missed many many details, including the appearance and voice of her assailant. I know that when I am in stressful situations (not life-threatening… but stressful nonetheless…) I tend to get a sort of tunnel focus, I don’t notice details beyond what I need to know to get me through whatever situation it is, and I only focus on ‘survival’. Examples might be… delivering an important presentation, being in a road traffic accident, dealing with a domestic or family health crisis. In such situations, one is forgiven for not seeing the details in the wider picture. I would contend that some of VS’ testimony could be vague, inaccurate, missing etc, which would account for the lack of detail & inconsistencies that have been well debated here. The alternative is that VS deliberately missed out or adjusted her testimony but, with that proposal, one would have to ask… for what motive? I can’t personally conceive of any reason why VS would deliberately mislead the enquiry team as to what happened. I am, however, prepared to consider whether coaching encouragement from the police may have led her to adopt a certain position and then have to defend that position in court.
2. I would contend that VS didn’t actually get a decent look at her assailant’s face (partly due to the ‘tunnel focus’ effect above) because principally it was just to damn dark! There would have been little, if any, light and I don’t buy the ‘car headlights’ proposition at all. As for being able to identify the colour of her assailant’s eyes… I don’t think so.
3. Not wanting to appear snooty, but wouldn’t most London criminals in the area have a cockney accent, (fink etc) rather than an educated voice? Thus making the voice ID a little less reliable… As has been discussed, ID evidence can be suspect and, in this case, seems to have been the main evidence that helped convict JH.
4. Why the lack of ANY forensics in the car except for VS / MG. No hair, footprints, mud, fibres etc … but bullets WERE found, indicating possibly a thorough clean but bullets planted at some point after? With the lack of sightings, forensics, there is NOTHING (except the testimony of a terrified young woman) to put JH at the scene.
5. I have been thinking about a scenario which is not JH or Alphon. More like… was JH framed and why? Who might be the third party not ID’d so far? Someone completely unconnected with JH but with indirect connections to others wanting him framed?
6. The pompom hat… I absolutely refuse to believe there was no hair left after the wearer took it off. Was the hat a feature in the trial?
7. Was JH or Alphon left handed?
8. What about the watches? Were they stolen, or still on MG & VS when discovered?
9. I find the 5 hr ordeal inexplicable. Except … some unidentified individual who let it go badly wrong, waiting & waiting for an opportunity to end it, or enjoyed the control, or wanted some kind of response from his victims. VS story really doesn’t stack up – all due respect but so many things seem wrong, but this is probably due to the stress of the event. What would she be looking to do in NOT telling truth? Could she have been lookng to hide the real nature of her relationship with MG?
10. Alternatively, what other scenarios present themselves? Why NO foresics from the inside of car? Was no-one actually in it, other than MG & VS? And what are the implications of that conjecture? A very different version of events? If so why did VS tell THAT story of a 5 hr aimless drive?
11. Regarding JH’s testimony, perhaps the Liverpool and Rhyl stories were BOTH true. As the trial moved on, Liverpool looked a thin alibi & the prosecution had managed to damage it so JH introduced the later trip to Rhyl. Unfortunately this looked shifty. If he’d told full story in one, he might have survived.
12. It sems to be down to VS’ word against JH. She looked certain (& a victim) so gets sympathy vote on the day. JH looks shifty (alibi change, admitting naively to (eg) hanky seems to be (strangely) an honest account. I can imagine that he entered dock secure that he was innocent, halfway through he panicked & changed / added to story. In an attempt to build a convincing story which was true but, tragically LOOKED false. In all probability he told the truth. At first not seeing the need to be untruthful as he knew he was innocent, but when things started going wrong, added a (TRUE) Rhyl story to build alibi. Just looked wrong.
13. I can believe that Acott was worried that Alphon was no longer in the frame after the first ID parade, and needed a result. I think I can glean that he subsequently hid / managed / maniplated evidence to ensure it all pointed to JH… by which time Acott had convinced himself (& VS?) of JH’s guilt & went from there.
14. Who planted the gun / cartridges? Perhaps ANother (France / Alphon !!) ‘helped’ police by aiding, hence his easy treatment. No prints on the gun DOESN’T point to JH frame-up. Either JH did it & cleaned gun OR someone else, who was being protected by having prints wiped & gun placed in a location ALREADY alluded to by JH. Possible conclusion … ANother did it, JH was framed.
15. Who was the gunman? Another WHO WAS ON RUN for 4 MONTHS (as reported from the scene by VS)?? So what crimes were being pursued from MAR – JUN 1961 in the area, perhaps another assault / rape / murder? Are there Police records/newspaper reports from the Bedfordshire area, perhaps with France connections? Perhaps there WAS an unknown gunman, being sought for crimes 4 months prior, who committed this act?
16. Personally I tend to think that Alphon’s presence in the enquiry was a massive coincidence, and post exclusion, he acts in character as a chancer. I tend to think he has nothing to do with the crime.
17. JH’s entanglement is also a coincidence & just unlucky for him. Witness his actions when the call went out for Ryan. Immediately he responded, openly, to clear himself. Not the actions of a guilty man??
18. France’s ‘apology’ to Gregsten family.. he knew who did it & knew his own small part in it (perhaps in letters) – apology was more like sorry, in the same way you might express sorrow “I’m sorry for your loss…” but his peripheral involvement drove him to the edge. Involvement conjecture …he knew the killer but was threatened if he revealed it, also he felt guilt at not doing anything about it.


The keys are
1. What really happened in the car, compare (i) VS statement, (ii) what we can KNOW from the evidence / data
2. What is the missing / withheld evidence
3. The public mood at the time – the need for vengeance / a natural trust in police / sensational nature of event / trial
4. VS’ statement was “we PICKED UP a man…” NOT “we were held up at gunpoint”… strange choice of words.
5. The contrast in court between VS & JH (one person’s word against another)
6. During the night of the murder, why no attempt to get away at petrol station etc?

Anyway, I think this post (my first…) has turned into a ramble, and has become a little disoriented. I look to others on the forum to correct my mistakes and to point me in the right direction. Thanks.

[Natalie Severn]

Hi Norma,

What "hesitation"?

Valerie took an extraordinary long time to reach her decision-twenty minutes in all .Surely in most cases a person either recognises someone instantly or they dont?
Valerie needed extra support which she found by hearing his London accent pronouncing "thinking" as "finking".


How can you argue that the hazel and blue eye colour would be indistinguishable in the dark, but that mousey brown and dark hair would be?

Hazel which is light a green/ brown colour and blue would both be "bleached" out as colours in the headlights at night and both would appear as a similar light grey "non-colour".
Mousey brown would appear as dark blond or "brownish".Dark brown or Black would appear as black.

[Victor]

Valerie"s "fleeting glimpse" evidence which combined with her hesitation,

Hi Norma,

What "hesitation"?

Clark had mousey brown hair -not dark hair

How can you argue that the hazel and blue eye colour would be indistinguishable in the dark, but that mousey brown and dark hair would be?

And your gorilla theory, clearly therefore makes nonsense of the Trower and Skillett "evidence"!

It's not my theory - it's a practical demonstration that eyewitness evidence is unreliable.

KR,
Vic.

[Victor]

Clarks aunt said that he had mousey brown hair. She mentioned nothing else at all about his appearance.

Hi Derrick,

Doesn't Woffinden mention "blue~ish eyes"?

KR,
Vic.

[Natalie Severn]

The Invisible Gorilla demonstrates the unreliability of eyewitnesses - I got the reference from "The Greatest Show on Earth" by Richard Dawkins, a xmas present and a fantastic read so far. It has no connection to Nimmo whatsoever, but completely undermines Dutton and Larman et al.

Vic---It also, ofcourse, undermines Valerie"s "fleeting glimpse" evidence which combined with her hesitation,her mistaken initial identification -of the "heavily built " Michael Clark [Hanratty was very slim] .Clark had mousey brown hair -not dark hair ;All this together with her belief that she was able to recognise the gunman"s eye colour ,suggests that Valerie was imprecise on several counts.
Eye colour cannot be determined accurately- whether seen briefly or for a longer period-in the artificial light beamed by headlights at night -its a scientific fact -and for the reasons I wrote about yesterday.
And your gorilla theory, clearly therefore makes nonsense of the Trower and Skillett "evidence"!

[Natalie Severn]

Clarks aunt said that he had mousey brown hair. She mentioned nothing else at all about his appearance.

Absolutely!
The only person who mentioned Michael Clark"s build was Det Supt. Acott who said Clark was "heavily built"...........well that was not Hanratty who was very slim.

[Derrick]

...Clark's aunt saying blue eyes and medium build...

Clarks aunt said that he had mousey brown hair. She mentioned nothing else at all about his appearance.

[Victor]

Well Det. Supt. Acott said that Michael Clark was heavily built and had short dark cropped hair but his aunt who lived on the Welsh borders and was Clark"s closest surviving relative, said he did not have dark hair but light mousey brown hair!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!
Neither the heavy build or mousey hair match Hanratty .

Hi Norma,

But if you look at it the other way round - Acott saying dark hair, and Clark's aunt saying blue eyes and medium build - then it's spot on for Hanratty!

I couldnt see the experiment because of the plug in needed.The only analogy I can see is between the invisible gorilla and Nimmo not seeing the importance of Trevor Dutton"s statements or Christopher Larman"s.

The Invisible Gorilla demonstrates the unreliability of eyewitnesses - I got the reference from "The Greatest Show on Earth" by Richard Dawkins, a xmas present and a fantastic read so far. It has no connection to Nimmo whatsoever, but completely undermines Dutton and Larman et al.

KR,
Vic.

[Natalie Severn]

Read about the "gamblers" of Belgravia when Billy Hill"s star rose after he had left "Harmony"s and the Harmony club in Soho where Charles France "presided"---- until March 1962.http://www.dailymail.co.uk/home/book...rmont-con.html

[Natalie Severn]

Maybe I should have asked was what Charles Dixie France and Peter Alphon had in common along with Billy Hill ?
Billy Hill made his fortune out of it eventually - playing the tables in "partnership" with Aspinalle in Belgravia !The boss of Britain"s underworld died peacefully in his bed in the "80"s while poor old France topped himself years before -a few days after the verdict on Hanratty,so maybe he didnt have the strength for the big stage after all!

[Natalie Severn]

Of those mentioned among Charles Dixie France"s associates at the Harmony Club he "presided over", the names of Billy Hill and Jack Spot stand out.Billy Hill was the North London gang boss .Information I googled on here says he began as a burglar but progressed to become boss of Britain"s underworld and mentor to the Krays.
It says Charles Dixie France presided over the Harmony club that this lot above frequented after midnight...........they went to a downstairs room ---to gamble.Now a little quiz: who else do we know said lived to gamble---and it was all that really interested him ?

[Natalie Severn]

Hi Norma

There is quite a good reference to 'Dixie' in this article - which I think has been posted before.

Although no evidence as such - it shows that Dixie hung around the fringes of the gangster culture of Soho and was known to some of its darkest characters.

http://www.classiccafes.co.uk/confessional_harmony.htm

Re your points about eye colour - we have a forensic science course at the college where I teach and Jonathan - a Cambridge graduate who teaches on the course - confirms that eye colour is very difficult to determine at night even with the aid of street lamps. He is going to test it out for us with one of his evening classes.

Thanks Julie -the item on Soho is a really instructive piece! So Charles Dixie France was a thought to have been a police informer! And what a dangerous group of men he moved among....
I look forward to hearing about the experiment on eye colour you are going to do with your colleague!
Cheers,
Norma

[Natalie Severn]

Hi Norma,

Yes, those Rhyl witnesses at twilight would be affected in exactly the same way - much like the Invisible Gorilla -> http://www.theinvisiblegorilla.com/g...xperiment.html However, Valerie had the opportunity to compare Alphon to her attacker, and believed that Michael Clark was a better match than Alphon.

KR,
Vic.

Well Det. Supt. Acott said that Michael Clark was heavily built and had short dark cropped hair but his aunt who lived on the Welsh borders and was Clark"s closest surviving relative, said he did not have dark hair but light mousey brown hair!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!
Neither the heavy build or mousey hair match Hanratty .
I couldnt see the experiment because of the plug in needed.The only analogy I can see is between the invisible gorilla and Nimmo not seeing the importance of Trevor Dutton"s statements or Christopher Larman"s.

[Victor]

Have you given some thought to the fact that people are unable to discern the true colour of blue in the headlights of a car at night? It is a scientific fact that nobody can actually see this as a true colour at night in artificial light and that the eyes the colour of hazel-which is a light greenish/ brown and eyes the colour of blue would both appear a bleached greyish colour in the artificial light of a headlight at night ?

Hi Norma,

Yes, those Rhyl witnesses at twilight would be affected in exactly the same way - much like the Invisible Gorilla -> http://www.theinvisiblegorilla.com/g...xperiment.html However, Valerie had the opportunity to compare Alphon to her attacker, and believed that Michael Clark was a better match than Alphon.

KR,
Vic.